Published By
Science Journal Publication
Science Journal of Business Management
ISSN: 2276-6278
International Open Access Publisher
http://www.sjpub.org/sjbm.html
© Author(s) 2012. CC Attribution 3.0 License.
Research Article
Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID sjbm-196, Issue 2, 5 Pages, doi: 10.7237/sjbm/196
Is Shared Leadership the New Way of Management? Comparison between Vertical and
Shared Leadership
Fragouli Evaggelia (Assistant Professor, Business School & Social Sciences, Aarhus University), Alexandra Vitta (Researcher)
Corresponding Author Email: fragouli_evaggelia@yahoo.com
Accepted 26 March, 2012
ABSTRACT-A lot of articles have been written in order to indicate
the effectiveness of leadership in teams, in enterprises and
organizations and especially the importance of shared leadership.
The fascination with leadership seems an enduring human condition.
Numerous theories of leadership have been espoused over the
centuries. The primary emphasis of these theories has been the
individual leader.
The purpose of this research is to widen the debate on leadership to
include, not only individual level leadership, but also to explore the
possibilities of ‘shared leadership’ at the group level of analysis and
thus suggest movement toward a multi-level theory of leadership.
Finally, we compare shared leadership and vertical leadership and
we analyse the evolution of leadership.
Keywords: shared leadership ; vertical leadership ;
management ; new venture
Introduction
Leadership is considered crucial for enabling team
effectiveness and some researchers have even argued that it
is the most critical ingredient. Yet most existing research on
team leadership has focused narrowly on the influence of an
individual team leader (usually a manager external to a team),
thus largely neglecting leadership provided by team members
(Carson et al. , 2007). Ensley et al. , 2006, defines shared
leadership as a simultaneous, ongoing, mutual influence
process within a team that is characterized by “serial
emergence” of official as well as unofficial leaders. Although
the need for shared leadership was explicitly described many
decades ago, the concept has failed to gain traction within the
mainstream leadership literature until recently. The
knowledge underlying future paradigm shifts is often
recognized by many individuals well before an actual
paradigm shift occurs. The incentive structure must exist to
motivate enough people to make the appropriate connections
and actively build momentum toward moving beyond
previous ways of thinking. It appears as though the current
leadership paradigm is just now beginning to expand beyond
the leader as commander outlook that has long dominated the
field.
This, we suggest, is a result of the proliferation of selfmanaged work groups , as well as the increased application
of systems thinking, complexity theories and decentralized
organizational designs. These events have forced individuals
to rethink traditional views of leadership. This is not to say
that vertical leadership is the way of the past, but rather that
future thinking about leadership must encompass both
vertical and shared facets in order to capture a fuller view of
leadership processes and outcomes.
Shared leadership
Some historical points of developing shared leadership
The top-heavy leadership myth has deep historical roots, but
from a scientific point of view, it was during the Industrial
Revolution that the task of organizational leadership began
to be formally studied and documented. During the early
1800s, organizational leadership was formally recognized as
an important component of economic activity when Jean
Baptiste Say, a French economist, proclaimed that
entrepreneurs must be capable of supervision and
administration. Prior to this time, economists were primarily
concerned with two factors of production – land and labor –
and, to a lesser extent, capital.
Accordingly, it was during the Industrial Revolution that the
concept of leadership was recognized as an important
ingredient of economic endeavors, and the predominant form
of leadership was top-down command and control ( Pearce &
Manz, 2005).
Shared Leadership: An Alternative Social Source of
Leadership
The study of leader behavior has typically focused on the
behavior of the appointed or elected leader of some group or
organization . However, leadership can emerge from a context
and be demonstrated by members (other than the designated
leader) of the group or organization . Below we briefly review
several historical lines of inquiry that are related to the
concept of shared leadership. Table 1 presents a summary of
the historical bases of shared leadership. The objective of this
research is to unite these disparate historical underpinnings
into an integrated conceptual framework for the
understanding of shared leadership ( Pearce & Sims, 2000).
Historical Bases of Shared Leadership
Law of the Situation
Perhaps one of the first writers to suggest that leadership can
come from sources other than the designated leader was Mary
Parker Follet. She wrote that the “law of the situation”
suggests that one should let logic dictate to whom one should
look for guidance based on individuals’ knowledge of the
situation at hand. While she did not expressly write on the
How to Cite this Article: Fragouli Evaggelia, Alexandra Vitta, “Is Shared Leadership the New Way of Management? Comparison between Vertical and Shared
Leadership ,” Science Journal of Business Management, Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID sjbm-196, Issue 2, 5 Pages, doi: 10.7237/sjbm/196
Science Journal of Psychology (ISSN: 2276-6278)
idea of shared leadership, per se, her “law of the situation” is
a clearly related concept in that the situation, not the
individual, provides the basis for leadership ( Pearce & Sims,
2000).
Page 2
viewed as a special case of the more traditional vertical
leadership. Thus, while co-leadership is clearly related to
shared leadership, it is distinct ( Pearce & Sims, 2000).
Followership
Emergent Leadership
More recent authors have explored the concept of emergent
leadership. Emergent leadership primarily refers to the
phenomenon of leader selection from a leaderless group .
Emergent leadership is similar to what, in this research
chapter, is termed shared leadership. However, the concepts
are distinct. While emergent leadership is typically concerned
with the ultimate selection of an ‘appointed’ leader, the
concept of shared leadership is concerned with an alternate
source of leadership for ongoing team functioning ( Pearce &
Sims, 2000).
Substitutes for Leadership
The ‘substitutes for leadership’ literature also provides a
possible framework for understanding the concept of shared
leadership. The substitutes for leadership literature suggests
that certain conditions, such as highly routinized work or
professional standards, may serve as substitutes for social
leadership. Whether or not these substitutes are actually
substitutes or are systematized outcomes from previous
leadership practices is debatable. However, whether or not
there are substitutes for leadership is not of concern when
classifying shared leadership. Shared leadership is not a
substitute for social leadership it is social leadership, albeit
from a different social source than that traditionally studied
in the leadership literature. However, as used in this research,
it may be that shared leadership can serve as a substitute for
more formal appointed leadership. Manz and Sims brought
forth this point, at the individual level, in their article, ‘SelfManagement as a Substitute for Leadership ( Pearce & Sims,
2000).
Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory
Other recent authors have explored the role of subordinates
in the leadership process. For example, Graen and colleagues
, have discussed the importance of the leader-follower dyad
in their work on leadership process. Their work suggests that
followers have a role in the leadership process but do not go
as far as to say that the source of leadership can be from the
followers, as is the case with shared leadership ( Pearce &
Sims, 2000) .
Co-leadership
Co-leadership research focuses on situations in which two
individuals simultaneously engage in one leadership position.
Co-leadership research is predominated by research in group
therapy where co-leaders occupy mentorprotégé
relationships. Much of this research examines how
coleadership develops and tactics for improving co-leadership
effectiveness . In some ways co-leadership can be considered
a special case of shared leadership – the two person case.
However, since co-leadership research is primarily concerned
with mentor-protégé relationships, in other ways it might be
While followers have not been of central interest in leadership
research, several scholars and practitioners from widely
disparate fields have emphasized the role that followers play
in the leadership process. The primary emphasis of this line
of research is the definition of ‘good’ followership. Kelly
defined good followers as those who have the vision to see
both the forest and the trees, the social capacity to work well
with others, the strength of character to flourish without
heroic status, the moral and psychological balance to pursue
personal and corporate goals at no cost to either, and, above
all, the desire to participate in a team effort for the
accomplishment of some greater purpose. Thus, while the
followership literature illuminates the indispensable role
followers play in the leadership equation it does not
illuminate the role of ‘followers’ in sharing the leadership
process ( Pearce & Sims, 2000).
Empowerment and Self-leadership
The topic of empowerment and self-leadership has received
considerable attention in recent years . The central issue in
the empowerment literature is that of power . Whereas
traditional models of management emphasize power
emanating from the top of an organization, empowerment
emphasizes the decentralization of power. The rationale
behind the empowering of individual workers is that those
dealing with situations on a daily basis are the most qualified
to make decisions regarding those situations. While the vast
majority of the empowerment literature focuses on the impact
on the individual some researchers have expanded the
concept to the group level of analysis. However to empower,
or share power, with members of a group is not the same as
observing shared leadership emanating from a group. Shared
leadership only exists to the extent that the group actively
engages in the leadership process ( Pearce & Sims, 2000).
Self-managing Work Teams
Recent work on self-managing work teams (SMWTs) has
taken the boldest steps toward the concept of shared
leadership . However, while recognizing that team members
can, and do, take on roles that were previously reserved for
management, this literature primarily focuses on the role of
the vertical leader and less on the role of the team as a whole
in the leadership process . Thus, while the self managing work
teams literature does acknowledge the role of team members
in the leadership process, it does not go so far as to suggest a
systematic approach to the examination of how, and to what
effect, the process of leadership can be shared by the team as
a whole ( Pearce & Sims, 2000).
Generally
The entrepreneurship literature has long been preoccupied
by the concept of the lone entrepreneur who against all odds
– creates a new venture and single handedly takes down
larger, more established incumbents. This fascination with
Page 3
Science Journal of Psychology (ISSN: 2276-6278)
the individual entrepreneur as the nexus of the venture
creation process has led entrepreneurship researchers on an
unproductive quest to identify the optimal traits of individual
entrepreneurs and has placed an overemphasis on vertical
leadership within the new ventures context, while relatively
neglecting founding teams as an area of research. This is
unfortunate considering that relying solely on vertical
leadership in top management teams would seem “to ignore
leadership dynamics within a group context (Ensley et al. ,
2006).
their team, they should experience higher commitment, bring
greater personal and organizational resources to bear on
complex tasks, and share more information. When they are
also open to influence from fellow team members, the team
can function with respect and trust and develop shared
leadership that in turn becomes an additional resource for
improving team process and performance. This intangible
resource, which is derived from the network relationships
within the team, results in greater effort, coordination, and
efficiency.
Shared leadership occurs when all members of a team are fully
engaged in the leadership of the team: Shared leadership
entails a simultaneous, ongoing, mutual influence process
within a team, that involves the serial emergence of official as
well as unofficial leaders. In other words, shared leadership
could be considered a case of fully developed empowerment
in teams. Several studies have documented the importance of
shared leadership across a wide variety of contexts—
including top management teams, change management teams,
teams of volunteers, research and development teams, virtual
teams, and even military squads. In fact, several studies
indicate that shared leadership is an even better predictor of
team success than just leadership from above. Thus, the initial
evidence points to an increasingly important role for shared
leadership, particularly in the knowledge worker context. As
one striking example,consider the case of the Braille Institute
of America (Pearce & Manz, 2005).
Only a handful of empirical studies have been conducted with
shared leadership as an explicit source of leadership, but the
results are promising. Some colleagues explored shared
leadership among teams of undergraduate students and found
a positive correlation with self-reported effectiveness. Pearce
and Sims studied the relationship between shared leadership
and change management team effectiveness at a large
automotive manufacturing firm and found shared leadership
to be a more useful predictor than the vertical leadership of
appointed team leaders. Some other colleagues found that
team leadership, defined in a manner similar to previous
definitions of shared leadership as the collective influence of
team members on each other, was positively related to both
team performance and potency over time in a sample of
undergraduate business students. It has been studied that
shared leadership in virtual teams engaged in social work
projects and again found that shared leadership was a
stronger predictor of team performance than vertical
leadership. Also it has been found that shared leadership to
be a stronger predictor than vertical leadership of new
venture performance in a sample of top management teams.
Finally, there is also indirect support for shared leadership
predicting team performance.
The models of leadership
The transactional–transformational model
While the dominant model used in leadership development
today is the transactional–transformational model, the subject
of much academic leadership research a revisionist movement
has begun to question whether scholars are missing the
potential of a broader range of leadership options by
coalescing too narrowly on this two-factor model. Pearce,
2007 identified this concern by observing that the
transactional– transformational model “is fast becoming a
two-factor theory of leadership processes, which is an
unwarranted oversimplification of a complex phenomenon.
The alternative models offered in this special issue
The vast majority of the articles in this special issue—five of
the seven—specify models that identify behaviors or
competencies for the focus of leadership development efforts.
One article provides a conceptual view on leadership
development and the last documents a process model—a
veritable “how to” manual—for leadership development in
the context of “onboarding” leaders into an organization
(Pearce, 2007).
Shared Leadership and Team Performance
Shared leadership is an important intangible resource
available to teams, and therefore it should enhance team
performance on complex tasks. When team members offer
their leadership to others and to the mission or purpose of
It has been examined that emergent leadership within teams
and found that team performance was greatest when other
team members, in addition to the emergent leader,
demonstrated high levels of leadership influence. Failure of
even a single member to exhibit leadership behavior was
found to be detrimental to team performance. Although
shared leadership was not formally defined or measured,
these findings seem to support the notion that shared
leadership may result in greater effectiveness than the
emergence of a single internal team leader. Taken as a whole,
these studies suggest that shared leadership is an important
predictor of team performance and provides a resource for
teams that goes beyond the leadership of any single individual
( Carson et al. , 2007).
Benefits of Shared Leadership
In many ways the research on shared leadership is still in its
infancy, but noteworthy benefits and limitations have
emerged from the few studies that have been undertaken.
Perhaps the most commonly cited benefit concerns the
synergy and expertise derived from a shared leadership
model. Here, the old adage two heads are better than one
seems appropriate. Leaders can utilize their individual
strengths, and organizations can benefit from diversity of
thought in decision making. Bligh posited that influence is
fluid and reciprocal, and team members take on the leadership
Science Journal of Psychology (ISSN: 2276-6278)
tasks for which they are best suited or are most motivated to
accomplish. O’Toole noted that two or more leaders are better
than one when the challenges a corporation faces are so
complex that they require a set of skills too broad to be
possessed by any one individual. Indeed, Many have argued
that during times of change and reorientation in a hotel
corporation, shared leadership between two leaders, one
task-oriented and the other behavior-oriented, would result
in greater success than leadership by one person alone.
Reduced stress levels for key leaders also make this model
attractive, as a more robust, shared leadership system does
not unduly burden any single leader. Furthermore, some other
authors extolled the virtue of shared leadership as it exploits
the wealth of talent present in an organization, capturing
energy and enthusiasm, thereby creating a distinct
competitive advantage. Flow and creativity seem to flourish
in a shared leadership environment. Moreover, teams often
work better when leadership is shared. In a study involving
road maintenance teams, Hiller found collective leadership to
be positively associated with team effectiveness. Finally,
Ensley suggested that “Shared leadership appears to be
particularly important in the development and growth of new
ventures” ( Kocolowski, 2010).
Empowering leadership and shared leadership
Empowering leadership from the CEO ( Chief Executive
Officer) is a critical element in creating shared leadership in
the top management team . Empowering leadership behaviors
encourage the development of followers who can make
independent decisions, think and act autonomously without
direct supervision, and generally take responsibility for their
own work behaviors . Moreover, the empowering leadership
process strives to create followers who are capable of
teamwork and effective shared leadership .
Empowering leadership entails modeling effective selfleadership behaviors and advocating the use of shared
leadership within the team. Empowering leadership focuses
on viewing mistakes as learning opportunities , as well as
having a primary emphasis on listening and asking questions
rather than talking and providing answers. An empowering
leader strives to replace conformity and dependence among
followers with initiative, creativity, independence, and
interdependence. The critical element to our model here is
the notion that shared leadership is created and developed
by empowering leadership from above. Several empirical
studies by Pearce and colleagues have identified a positive
relationship between empowering leadership from above and
the development of shared leadership in teams, including top
management teams (Pearce et al. , 2008 ) .
Shared leadership and corruption
The empirical evidence on shared leadership, to date, has
consistently linked it with positive organizational outcomes.
Most of the studies have examined some dimension of
performance, however, several have examined other
constructs, such as team dynamics. Most related to our
purpose, it has been found that shared leadership is an
effective mitigation against the emergence of anti citizenship
behaviour in teams. Pearce defined anti citizenship behaviour
Page 4
as including defiance and avoidance of work, and is also
similar to the concept called counterproductive work
behaviour. Further, there was found a link between
citizenship and ethical behaviour (Baker, Hunt, & Andrews
2006). While anti citizenship behaviour may not rise to the
level of Enron-like corruption, it clearly serves as a
preliminary indicator that supports our analysis here: Once
certain forms of corrupt behaviour are tolerated a slippery
slope is encountered where other more egregious forms
become tolerated and the cycle continues . As such, and in line
with, shared leadership appears to provide a buffer against
corruptive influences. More specifically we view shared
leadership as an important moderator of the relationship
between predisposition of the CEO for corruption (as
measured by responsibility disposition) and engagement in
corruption at the executive level of the organization. The crux
of our argument is that shared leadership can provide a robust
system of leadership checks and balances, thereby acting as
a moderator of the relationship between CEO responsibility
predisposition and executive corruption. ( Pearce et al, 2008)
Distinguishing between vertical and shared leadership
Leadership is the process of influencing others to understand
and agree about what needs to be done and how it can be done
effectively, and the process of facilitating individual and
collective efforts to accomplish a shared objective. In top
management teams, there are two potential sources of
leadership, which are defined by “who” engages in leadership.
The first source, the vertical leader, has received considerable
attention and support in the literature (Gerstner & Day, 1997).
The second source, the team, has been the focus of an
emerging stream of research that views the team as a potential
source of leadership. Vertical leadership may be viewed as an
influence on team processes. In contrast, shared leadership is
a team process where leadership is carried out by the team
as a whole, rather than solely by a single designated
individual. To this end, vertical leadership is dependent upon
the wisdom of an individual leader, whereas shared
leadership draws from the knowledge of a collective. Further,
vertical leadership takes place through a top–down influence
process, whereas shared leadership flows through a
collaborative process.
Here we focus on four fundamental types of leadership that
team members might share—directive, transactional,
transformational, and empowering (Pearce, 2004). Shared
directive leadership, for example, might be expressed as peers
test one another with a directive give-and-take about how to
engage key stakeholders, develop strategic initiatives or how
to create internal systems and structures. Similarly, shared
transactional leadership might be expressed through collegial
recognition of efforts and contributions or by establishing key
performance metrics and distributing rewards based on those
metrics. Additionally, teams might engage in shared
transformational leadership through the creation of a shared
strategic vision or by inspiring one another to challenge
existing industry standards and norms to create breakthrough
products or services. Finally, shared empowering leadership
might be expressed in a team through peer-based support and
encouragement of providing self-rewards, viewing personal
obstacles as opportunities to learn or engaging in teamwork
How to Cite this Article: Fragouli Evaggelia, Alexandra Vitta, “Is Shared Leadership the New Way of Management? Comparison between Vertical and Shared
Leadership ,” Science Journal of Business Management, Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID sjbm-196, Issue 2, 5 Pages, doi: 10.7237/sjbm/196
Page 5
Science Journal of Psychology (ISSN: 2276-6278)
and participative goal setting with other members of the team.
The following sections elaborate on the importance of both
vertical and shared leadership within the new venture context
(Ensley et al. , 2006).
Conclusion
It has become increasingly clear in recent years that the
conceptualization of leadership must be broadened beyond
that of top–down heroic leadership. As has been
demonstrated in the current article, shared leadership
processes add substantial insight into the performance of
organizations. Further, shared leadership appears to be
particularly important in the development and growth of new
ventures. Within this context, the explanatory value of shared
leadership goes above and beyond that of vertical leadership.
This suggests that high profile cases of prodigal
entrepreneurs, whose individual creativity and charisma have
led them to fame and fortune, are more myth than reality. If
nothing else, the leadership of the principal founder is only
part of the story behind most successful start ups. It takes the
leadership of an array of talented individuals to develop and
grow new ventures. This highlights the great importance in
selecting and developing top management teams, rather than
simply attracting a superstar CEO: It is time to move beyond
the moribund myth of the heroic entrepreneur as the sole
leader of the firm.
References
1.
Baker, L., Hunt, G. & Andrews, C. (2006). Promoting ethical behavior and
organizational citizenship behaviors: The influence of corporate ethical
values. Journal of Business Research, 59(7): 849−857.
2.
Carson , J. , Tesluk , P., Marrone , J. ( 2007 ) Shared leadership in teams:
an investigation of antecedent conditions and performance, Academy
of Management Journal 50 ( 5 ) : 1217–1234.
3.
Ensley , M. , Hmieleski, K., Pearce, C. ( 2006 ) The importance of vertical
and shared leadership within new venture top management teams:
Implications for the performance of startups , The Leadership Quarterly
17 : 217–231 .
4.
Gerstner, C., & Day, D. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member
exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82(6) : 827–844.
5.
Kocolowski, M. ( 2010 ) Shared leadership : Is it time for a change?
Emerging leadership journeys.
6.
Pearce , C. ( 2007 ) The future of leadership development: The
importance of identity, multi-level approaches, self-leadership, physical
fitness, shared leadership, networking, creativity, emotions, spirituality
and on-boarding processes, Human Resource Management Review 17
: 355–359.
7.
Pearce , C. , Manz , C. ( 2005 ) The New Silver Bullets of Leadership: The
Importance of Self- and Shared Leadership in Knowledge Work ,
Organizational Dynamics, 34(2) :130–140.
8.
Pearce , C. , Manz , C. , Sims, H. ( 2008 ) The roles of vertical and shared
leadership in the enactment of executive corruption: Implications for
research and practice. The Leadership Quarterly 19 : 353–359.
9.
Pearce, C. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and
shared leadership to transform knowledge work, Academy of
Management Executive, 18(1) : 47–57.
10. Pearce , C., Sims, H. (2000) Shared leadership: toward a multi- level
theory of leadership Team Development, 7 :115–139.
How to Cite this Article: Fragouli Evaggelia, Alexandra Vitta, “Is Shared Leadership the New Way of Management? Comparison between Vertical and Shared
Leadership ,” Science Journal of Business Management, Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID sjbm-196, Issue 2, 5 Pages, doi: 10.7237/sjbm/196